EvP shooters are mostly standing in back row so 7 or 8 doesn't even matter.

No, 7 or 8 is important for blocking them, because of tactics or aura of swiftness. I make early upgrade cerberus only for that, because "no retaliations" are not necessary as 8 speed.

Elvin said:3 speed for melee might be warranted for some extreme cases like zombies but.. it just feels too slow - especially considering they'd get 2 speed on diagonals.

4 seems to be relative slow only if there are many units with 8+ speed, so if you remove that cathegory, then terms of slow/quick became shifted.
3 is natural slow speed, 4 seems to be average (half distance between players).
Slow means that it is difficult to find targets for attacking, but for 4 speed it is not a serious problem.
That's why I had wrote about skillful speed of 3 because value of strong/weak maneuvers with that units is great as in no other situations.

If you imagine 4-8 speed at big 14x14 arena, so 3-6 looks the same at 10x12.

I had wrote about +1 speed to big creatures not randomly. Big creatures (especially non-flyers) have serious problems with their mobility (meeting obstacles 3-4 times more on their way to target), so if 3 speed is minimal playable for small units, 4 for big units is analogue of this.

Knights are heavy but not quickest cavalry (as light) so this is strange to having maximal speed of 8 for them, more than many flyers.
I think it is better to slow them AND improving cavalry bonus up to 10% per cell to fully run the horses at least began to be dangerous like dragon's breath.
It is even more plausible to have a low initiative for the knights (this is not cavalry for fast strike but cavalry for power strike), but you are not going to change it.

Quote:Knights are heavy but not quickest cavalry (as light) so this is strange to having maximal speed of 8 for them, more than many flyers.
I think it is better to slow them AND improving cavalry bonus up to 10% per cell to fully run the horses at least began to be dangerous like dragon's breath.

magnomagus said:Well the current philosophy is that each faction has one unit that can reach the other side, except the turtling factions fortress & necro.

Ok, why T7 flyer nerf speed is better than T6 non-flyer for Heaven?
T7 can be countered by Storm Wind, and T7 haven't charge and T7 have lower initiative (11 against 12) for rushes at first turn.
T6 is potential strongest unit of humans because of training, another reason to make it slower with more difficult to strike at first turn.

dredknight said:Nargott, Cavalry is not heavy it is just a man on a horse. If you start pinpointing every single unit to the real world there will be a lot left unexplained.

Knights are very heavy type of cavalry a-priory.
But agree, there are many other strange things, for example very strange is that 1 knight can beat 10 swordsmans (not simple militia but elite heavy infantry).
T4 griffins are strange (weaker than monks and much weaker than knights, flying lion is many times weaker than horse, what?).
T5 hydra is strange (giant larger than dragon monster is strong as simple monk).
T2 centaur is strange (light archery cavalry, must be 1 tier lower than knights, but having 4 tiers difference, what?).
T3 bear is strange (bear is many times weaker than horse, what?).

Quote:T7 can be countered by Storm Wind, and T7 haven't charge and T7 have lower initiative (11 against 12) for rushes at first turn.
T6 is potential strongest unit of humans because of training, another reason to make it slower with more difficult to strike at first turn.

The problem with your idea is that people have already been playing this game for 10 years and your flyer idea completely changes anticipated tactics. Same applies to blood furies with 7 speed.

magnomagus said:The problem with your idea is that people have already been playing this game for 10 years and your flyer idea completely changes anticipated tactics. Same applies to blood furies with 7 speed.

Cutting stats from 5% to 2.5% have much more influence than nerfing speed of knights instead of angels.

But I understand you ignore flyers' class specifics (exclusive super mobility) that was in H1-H4 assuming other reasons are more important.

EDIT:
So the difference is that you like very late games so you don't be afraid of the change of stats (which kill early game), but I like tactical combats, so I don't be afraid of the change of combat, on the contrary, wish this.

Quote:Nargott, Cavalry is not heavy it is just a man on a horse. If you start pinpointing every single unit to the real world there will be a lot left unexplained.

Stats are not only based on realism but also implied tactics, if you have only one unit that can resurrect, you are not going to use it for the first frontal assault.
____________MMH5.5 Downloads | MMH5.5 Translations | MMH5.5 FAQ

magnomagus said:Stats are not only based on realism but also implied tactics, if you have only one unit that can resurrect, you are not going to use it for the first frontal assault.

It's never stopping for using them in that role if necessary. Especially red angels without resurrection and with great damage.
For the white angels speed of 7 is logical, yes. As for knights.
Heaven have 3 distance units (archers, monks, white griffins), so having only one 8-speed unit (red angel) is normal.

I am curious, what would the average attack and defense on tier 6 and tier 7 units be if you wanted to keep attack/defense at 3.3%?

For instance let's assume that the current average attack/defense for tier 6 is 24 and 30 for tier 7. Where would you have them be instead?
____________
Let us rally an army against fred. Fred prepare for the metallic taste of doom.
-Celfious

Quote:EDIT:
So the difference is that you like very late games so you don't be afraid of the change of stats (which kill early game), but I like tactical combats, so I don't be afraid of the change of combat, on the contrary, wish this.

No the difference is I like early games and late games and like the game in general and both early and late will be improved significantly by 2.5%.

magnomagus said:No the difference is I like early games and late games and like the game in general and both early and late will be improved significantly by 2.5%.

How do you like early game if never try to finish the game at first month (playing maps where it is possible)?

Early game without the opportunity to win at this stage can never be considered complete and interesting, IMHO.

For example, in chess some openings allow you to immediately win a game, quickly entering into direct confrontation with the enemy, so the debut stage is so interesting.

Quote:while you only like one specific part of the game, in one specific timeframe, on one specific map.

The only my specific is PvP-oriented game
All the rest is a consequence.
If I like PvP map, I will never play any PvE maps.
So for PvP it is normal to having 3-6 weeks per game, that's showing by Tournament Edition mod. So later game is game about PvE, not "PvP timeframe".

magnomagus said:When did I ever say that?, I designed ARMG for all possible map sizes T-Iu and played all sizes and many different settings.

Theoretically design but practically not playing by yourself.
If you start playing at quick format (for example at 1-month oriented maps not necessarily small size), you may see potential problems with new 2.5% stats, even with 3.33% stats.

EDIT:
Probably if you are really like early game, you will return 5% stats but prefer other alternatives to improve balance super-late game (but I doubt that you like early game )
Tools for this are always exist (artifacts, perks, spellpower level-growth mechanics for some artifacts/perks, powerful but expensive high spells, etc.) but which of them are chosen depends on what we are willing to pay, now you try to pay by sacrificing early game, but it is not important for you because you never play it and/or don't want to play it.

Quote:I actually thought the other way around 28 x 3.33 = ~93, 28 x 2.5 = 70,
so 70/3.33 = ~21, so it increase A&D on tier 1 by around 7.

This is not correct math model, IMHO.
You count damage against 0 defence, but this is badly correlated with real situations.

I do not see any problems with the translation, in my opinion everything is clear.

Yes, I understand that you like PvE, and earlier PvE too. But this is misunderstanding, when I wrote about early game, I mean full-valued early game with PvP at this stage also.

So you write about supporting small maps but the fact is that playing even 320 maps quickly is real. The pace of the game depends on the player's desire, his skill and the strength of guards, especially zonal guards.

EDIT:
The main question about 2.5% stats is:

What level of heroes are you oriented to PvP battle?
Only to 30-40 levels (super-late), or to 10-40 levels?

What about difference between heroes at low levels 10-20, between might and magic?
Is it enough if having 2.5% stats or not?

What about units' tiers at the first month of game?
Is it profitably to spend much resources for T7 and having weaker creatures for that?

If a map is late or superlate-oriented, is it better to get more external low-level dwellings at this map than decrease T7 for all maps?

Yes, if you ignore earlier PvP, all this questions are not important. But in that case you can't say about supporting early game too

I translated and understood it correctly.
You theoretically support by settings but practically don't play at these settings, don't check how balance changes are works at these settings.
Yes, all settings can not be balanced, it's easier to shift it to a player. But I mean supporting as full-valued supporting, with balance supporting (and testing) too. And "I like early game" as playing it, not only give settings to play it.

I don't see anything wrong with like only the late game but I'm surprised when you write about the fact that you like the early game and support it (I never see early game videos at your mod, but battles with 50-200 dragons per stack often).